THE BYZANTINE COMMUNION CHANT FOR EASTER
IN 14TH-CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS
by
HORST BERNHARD LOESCHMANN
B. Mus., The University of British Columbia, 1976
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Department of Music)
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
October 1982
© Horst Bernhard Loeschmann, 1982 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Department of Misin
The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3
Date October 18, 1982
DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT
It is only recently that the attention of musicologists has been directed to the study of Eastern church music as transmitted in 14th and
15th-century Byzantine manuscripts. This constitutes a reversal of the prejudices held by most pioneers in the discipline, who believed that the musical oeuvre of the late Byzantine empire was only a pallid reflection of a once magnificent style, and was, therefore, unworthy of detailed examina• tion. In its support of the current reassessment of the late Byzantine musical style, this study shows that, in spite of the declining fortunes of the empire, the composers of that time fashioned a vital and distinguished culmination to a millenium of liturgical composition.
The thesis is limited to a clearly discernible entity within the 14th-century repertoire: the Easter Koinonikon, or Communion chant,
Euiua xPT-crxou, a hymn conveyed by at least fourteen manuscripts representing the works of some seven composers. The eight settings considered here comprise the entire 14th-century collection of this chant that has survived the vicissitudes of time.
The method of investigation is both historical and analytical.
Its results reveal a hitherto unsuspected degree of consanguinity among the musical materials of all seven composers, one which is delineated by the establishment of three distinct sub-groupings. These, in turn, further emphasize the presence of a known thesaurus of musical elements. A simi• larity of various compositional procedures also becomes evident. The most iii.
significant of these is the use of a refrain that is analagous to the
Alleluia refrain which occurs in most other Communion hymns. There are,
naturally, a number of stylistic differences that appear in the written
tradition during the course of the century,.and these reflect a gradual
evolution of the composers' idiom. Of particular interest to future studies
is the development of a tentative chronology for these seven composers,
since in many cases this supersedes their currently accepted dating.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that this study focusses
attention and sheds new light on a neglected area of Byzantine music history,
and indicates the need for continuing research in this field. iv.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
INTRODUCTION 1
SOURCE MATERIAL 6
TEXT 22
COMPOSERS 32
MUSIC 43
SUMMARY:
A. Changes 72
B. Stasis 87
CONCLUSIONS 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 V.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I List of Primary Manuscripts Consulted 4
II Average Frequency of Text-Phrase Endings Coincident
with Musical Cadences 23
III Average Text-Element Repetition 24
IV Earliest MSS that Contain Any Koinonika by Each Composer 34
V Ordering of Settings of Ewya xpi°"rou in MSS 39
VI Modal Assignment of Ecoya xpicnrou in Securely-Dated MSS 40
VII Length of Ewya xpi-°"rou Melodies 73
VIII Interval Usage in Percentages , 76
IX Proportion of Music in Text and ''Re'frain-' 98: vi.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 : Refrain Repetition in Gerasimos's Setting 18
2 Text Parallelism in Glyke's TevoaoQe and £ooua xP^a^ov 28
3 Changing Ambitus in Suya XPT-0"1^ 75 vi i.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to express a deep sense of obligation to all who have helped me in this research. Dr. Dimitri Conomos spawned my interest in Byzantine musicology, and has assiduously nurtured it through the course of a number of years. I am thankful to him for suggesting this topic, and for his encouragement and invaluable assistance during my travails of a sometimes forbidding, occasionally even vexatious, territory. To my parents I am greatly indebted. They have constantly offered their support to my academic endeavours, and have unstintingly helped me in innumerable ways. Above all, my wife, Diana, has assisted incalculably at all stages of this thesis; the editing and typing of the first draft signals but two major instances. More importantly, though, her devotion and unceasing love were an inestimable support. Without her this thesis would not.have materialized. To all the above, and to many other friends who offered a mul• titude of kindnesses, I can do no better than to proffer the salutation of the Byzantine polychronion:
A6£a 6ea> xui 6o£aaowxi ae OUTCQS.
A6§a 9eu xw euSoKiiaavxi ouxws ...
ItoAAou vp\v xpovoi of 6epcarovT£s xou Kupxou. 1.
INTRODUCTION
For the past two decades musical scholars have devoted increasing attention to the vast amount of liturgical music composed in the final century and a half of the Byzantine Empire (1300-1450). The pioneers in the discipline of Byzantine musicology generally eschewed this reper• toire, for they considered it a vitiated and superficial reflection of
'classical' Byzantine music and hymnographyJ A reassessment of the pro• digious musical output that manifests itself in the declining years of the
Empire has gradually taken place, however, and has revealed this period as constituting a vital and distinguished culmination of a millenium of liturgical composition.
The present study focusses on an example of one of the significant groups of chants for the Divine Liturgy in the.East as transmitted by 14th- century musical manuscripts — the Communion antiphon, Ztoucx. XP^TOU.
The Communion hymn, or Koinonikon, comprises the largest body of proper psalmody that is used in the Mass of the Orthodox Church, and consists of a cycle of twenty-six texts, each of which is allocated to one or more occasions in the liturgical year. This collection reflects a usage that was fully developed at least by the 11th century, but which can, in fact, be traced back to the 9th century, as reflections of its existence can be
"*"Egon Wellesz disparaged this repertoire as ". . .the rather superficial coloratura style of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries." Such deprecation is not uncharacteristic of the attitude of most early scholars in the field. Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2d ed., rev. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 23. 2.
seen in the Patmos and Holy Cross typika. As with many of the major
hymns in the Byzantine Rite, the Koinonikon is used too cover a liturgical action. After the Elevation=and fraction of the Consecrated Gifts, the priest intones the words "Holy things for the holy," and the congregation responds with the chant "One is holy. . ." Following this, the clergy 3 receive Communion while the choir sings the Communion antiphon..
The antiphon Etoua XPT-°"TOO is used as the proper Koinonikon for
Easter. Its connection with this feast is clearly an old tradition, as it is without exception specified by all liturgical ordos from Constantinople.
The text of this hymn is one of only two non-scriptural Koinonika, and as 5 such the customary pendant Alleluia is omitted:
Eooua xPT-0"rou uexaAaBeTe
Trnyns aBavaxou yetioaoQe
("Partake of the body of Christ, taste the source of immortality")
It must also be noted:, however, that in addition to the use of this hymn for the Communion of the clergy at Easter, it also seems to have
Dimitri Conomos, "Communion Chants in Magna Graecia and Byzantium," JAMS XXXIII (Summer 1980): 24-3; also see idem, "Psalmody and the Communion Cycle," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 25 (1981): 4-7-48. The Typikon (TUTTlKOV) is a liturgical book which contains the Rule for the Service of all Liturgies and Offices for the entire church year. 3 Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, The Festal Menaion (London: Faber and Faber, 1969), p. 80. 14. Conomos, "Psalmody and the Communion Cycle," p. 113. The Jerusalem ordo of 1122, and the somewhat earlier Palestinian practice as reflected in a Georgian lectionary, both contribute unique exceptions to this prescription (ibid., pp. 114—16). Neither of these practices,however, is contained in any of the musical MSS under consideration. 5 The other non-scriptural Koinonikon is the troparion Tou 6£lTTVOU OOU for Holy Thursday. 3.
been used regularly throughout the liturgical year during the Communion of the faithful. Currently this is still common practice in the Greek and
Slavic churches, and on occasion Too Seiirvou aou is also chanted for the same purpose. This usage, which constitutes an unwritten convention, may in all likelihood be dated to the 12th century. Liturgical documents up to that time indicate that in both Eastern and Western rites the Communion hymn was generally used during the people's Communion. It was only sometime during that century that the Koinonikon was transferred to its customary loca• tion at the Communion of the clergy; as if to compensate for this, a tradi•
r tion of using Exoya xPT-a^0U f° the Communion of the laity during most liturgies evolved. Certainly this practice is eminently suited to theo• logical precepts, for, as Helen Breslich-Erickson has pointed out, every
Sunday may be considered as a 'small' Easter.
A total of fourteen manuscripts have been utilized as the primary source material for this study. All of these represent a new type of musical codex that appears with increasing frequency during the 14th and 15th centuries. These manuscripts, usually called Akolouthiai, or Orders of
Service, constitute, as Kenneth Levy has noted, a first attempt to establish in a single collection an anthology containing the bulk of the musical chants for the Byzantine rite.^ In their contents these Akolouthiai sup• planted the earlier books known as Psaltikon and Asmatikon, the former of
Helen Breslich-Erickson, "The Communion Hymn of the Byzantine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts," in Studies in Eastern Chant III, ed. Milos Velimirovic (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 64, n. 37.
7 The fundamental study by Kenneth Levy provides an excellent elucidation of the genesis and contents of this class of MS. See "A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week," JAMS XVI (Summer 1963): 154-57. See also Oliver Strunk, "The Antiphons of the Oktoechos," in Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New York: W.W. Norton £ Co., 1977), pp. 170-72. which contained extremely elaborate chants used only by skilled soloists and the latter comprised a collection of melismatic choral chants. Included in these new Akolouthiai is not only most of the proper and ordinary psalmody, but also some of the ordinary hymns for the services of Vespers, Matins, and 8 the three Divine Liturgies.
The following 14th-century manuscripts which transmit the Koinonikon
Eaiya xpxaxou were consulted.
TABLE I
List of Primary Manuscripts Consulted
A. Dated Manuscripts from the 14-th Century
Athens MS. 2458 1336 Athens MS. 2622 — 1341-ca. 1360 „ Ambrosiana MS.L. 36 sup. (gr. 476) —1341-ca. 1360 Ambrosiana MS. Q. 11 sup. (gr. 665) — ca. 1360-1385 Koutloumousi MS. 4-57 — ca. 1360-1385 Vatopedi MS. 14-95 — ca. 1360-138510 ,, Vienna MS. theol. gr. 185 — ca. 1385-1391
B. Undated Manuscripts from the 14th Century
Athens MS. .2600 Athens MS. 904 Athens MS. 2454 Athens MS. 2411 Sinai MS. 1294. Sinai MS. 1462 Taphos MS. 425
The contents of a representative 14th-century Akolouthiai (in this case, Vienna MS. theol. gr. 185) are given in Christian Hannick, "Etude sur l'&KoAouOia aauaTiKf)," in Jahrbuch der Oesterreichischen Byzantinistik 19 (1970): 245-46.
For purposes of convenience this and the following MS will hereafter be cited, respectively, as Ambrosiana MS. L. 36, and Ambrosiana MS. Q. 11. """^Only Athens MS. 2458 may be precisely dated by its colophon. The five following MSS are approximately dated on the basis of their polychronia (acclamations) which refer to Anne of Savoy (reigned 1341 to ca. 1360) or Andronicus IV (reigned ca. 1360 to 1385). See Strunk, "Antiphons of the Oktoechos," pp. 170-71.
"'""'"Hereafter cited as Vienna MS. 185. This MS is usually dated as cited here. See Dimitri E. Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. A Study of Late Byzantine Liturgical Chant (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1974), p. 47 and p. 53. But Hannick suggests 1379 to 1391 instead (see Hannick, "Etude," p. 245).
12 These three Athens MSS are summarily dated as m Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 48. Athens MS 904, however, also contains some 15th-century music that was added later by a second scribe (see ibid., p. 48, n. 30),
Athens MS. 2411, Taphos MS. 425, and the two Sinai MSS have been assigned to the 14th century by Conomos. 6.
SOURCE MATERIAL
Some eight different musical settings of the Communion hymn
Euua xpT-tfTou are transmitted in 14th-century Byzantine musical manuscripts.
Most of the fourteen manuscripts consulted (see Table I) provide only a
single setting of this text, but five of the sources give multiple versions.
The following seven composers are represented: Ioannes Glykes; Konstantinos
Moschianos; Ioannes Kladas; Philip Gavalos; Ioannes Doukas; Gerasimos
hieromonachos; George Panaretos. Each of these composers is credited with one setting except for Kladas, to whom two are ascribed.
The setting of Iwua xPi-o"rou attributed to Glykes seems to have been by far the most popular version. It appears at least once — sometimes 15 twice — in twelve of the manuscripts that contain the Easter Communion hymn (a total of fourteen instances). The verson by Moschianos is a distant second with a total of five example in four manuscripts. Each of the re• maining composers is represented in one, or occasionally two, manuscripts.
Glykes's setting is in one respect somewhat problematical. The twelve manuscripts are in considerable disagreement about the modal
lt+See Table V below.
The remaining two, Athens MS. 2411 and Athens MS. 904, contain only a version by Kladas. 7. designation for the fourteen versions of this hymn, as a total of four different modes are specified, The distribution is as follows:
Athens MS. 2458 fol. 169 Mode I Plagal. Ambrosiana MS. L. 36 fol. 264v requiring an r Vienna MS. 185 fol. 285 1 f start v 16 Athens MS. 2600 fol. 63 17 Sinai MS. 1294 fol. 167r
Athens MS. 2622 fol. 360r Mode III Authentic, Ambrosiana MS. Q. 11 fol. 2611 requiring a c_ or Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 217r possibly an a start Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 217v
Sinai MS. 1462 fol. 149 contains a double main signa• ture of which the first group is not completely legible. Most likely, however, it denotes either Mode I Plagal or Mode III Authentic. The second group specifies the Nana mode (2Z ) that requires a start on c.
Athens MS. 2454 fol. 42 Mode II Plagal, re• r 18 Taphos MS. 425 fol. 152 quiring a g_ start
i- - 19 Koutloumousi MS. 457 fol. 232 Nana mode (22 ), r Vienna MS. 185 fol. 268 requiring a or a g start
16 The signature is indistinct in the microfilm, but this seems most likely. 17 Although the signature here is reckoned from d_ the opening neume of the hymn is an ascending third, which compensates for the modal signature and thus requires a start on f_. 18 The signature is not entirely visible in the microfilm but this is most probable. 19 The Nana (mesos tetartos. or Mode IV Medial) is one of two medial modes commonly used during this period. It is polyvalent and appears in our repertoire in conjunction with Mode III Authentic (it , see Sinai MS. 1462 fol. 149r) and Mode IV Plagal (If , see Koutloumousi MS. 457 fol. 232v and Vienna MS. 185 fol. 268r). Constantin Floros has suggested ". . .dass der Mesos tetartos gewissermassen eine Mittelstellung zwischen dem IV. authentischen und dem IV. plagalen Echos einnimmt. und an beiden teilhat, ausserdem dass der III. authentische und der IV. mediale Echos sich annahern oder gar in mancher Hinsicht angleichen. . ." Constantin Floros, "Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation (II)," in Musik des Ostens IV, ed. Elmar Arro and Fritz Feldmann (Kassel: Barenreiter Verlag, 1967), p. 26. 8.
On the basis of the preceding tabulation one would.* have to assume
that at least three different pitch levels could be utilized for the start
of this composition, two of which (f and cj predominate. This assumption
seems to be verified by two 15th-century manuscripts, Athens MS. 2406 and
Iviron MS. 1120, both of which provide two main signatures for this hymn:
Mode I Plagal (nx.fTX.a') and Nana (?z ). As a result of duplicate neumation
such double martyriai in 14th and 15th-century manuscripts invariably indi•
cate progression from the.same pitch and seem to have only a confirmatory
21 function. In this case, however, the following neumes do not resolve the dichotomy and merely provide the opening that is common to all of our 14th- 22
century versions:£Vrs . It seems probable then, that during the 14th century
both Mode I Plagal and Mode III Authentic (or the Nana) were customarily used
for this hymn. Moreover, it is interesting to note that this disagreement,
which resulted in at least a bi-modal tradition, is already evident in our
two earliest sources (Athens MS. 2458 and the virtually contemporaneous 23 Athens MS. 2622), and is then continued throughout the 14th century. 20 Respectively, Athens MS. 2406 ('1453') fol. 289Y, and Iviron MS. 1120 ('1458') fol. 583r. Also, as was indicated above, it is possible that Sinai MS. 1462 contains the -identical double signature. 21 See Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, pp. 318-19, who cites the following example in which the two different main signature taken in conjunction with their subsequent neumes indicate an identical start on d.:
22 The only minor exception is, of course, the opening in Sinai MS. 1294 referred to in n. 17 above. 23 The two versions in Vienna MS. 185 .add support to this hypothesis. Although they are in Mode I Plagal and the Nana they require, respectively, an f_ and a £ start. The use of Mode II Plagal in Athens MS. 2454 and Taphos MS. 425 is somewhat more difficult to explain. It is possible, however, that this reflects a local variant, and in the case of. Athens MS. 2454 this is not an unusual divergence from the consensus of other MSS. Thus, for example, Athens MS. 2454 is the only one of nine 14th-century MSS which assigns the TTaAcaov ("old") setting of TeOaaaGe to Mode I Plagal, instead of to Mode II Plagal. TstioaoQe is the Communion verse for the Presanctified "liturgy. 9.
For the purposes of this study preference has been given to the version in
Athens MS. 2458 while other versions have been consulted when necessary.
Athens MS. 2458 is not only the earliest Akolouthiai that can be dated pre• cisely ('1336') but in most instances it also seems to establish or to follow 24 the modal designation of the majority of 14th-century manuscripts and its transmissions are seldom distorted by scribal errors. In addition, the choice of Mode I Plagal is in accordance with the earliest musical sources 25 that transmit the Ecoua xPi-aT0U' The thirteen remaining transmissions generally follow Athens MS.
2458 but they do display a number of melodic variants. Such variants usually constitute only minor alterations to the melodic fabric and comprise both figural expansion and contraction. Certainly a cursory examination of these changes supports the conclusion reached by Dimitri Conomos, who notes that . . .melodic ornamentation should not be viewed as evidence either for stylistic development, or for chronological progression...?^
Thus in the following comparison of two excerpts from Athens MS. 2458 (fol.
169r) and Vienna MS. 185 (fol. 285r), the later manuscript contains in one case a simplification and, in the other instance, an elaboration of our earliest source.
24 Athens MS. 2458 also contains, for instance, three settings of FeuaaaOe, and in each case these Koinonika agree in their modal designation with the majority of 14th-century sources.
25 Conomos, "Psalmody and the Communion Cycle," p. 116.
26 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 150. 10.
EXAMPLE 1
Somewhat more substantial differences also occur in a few manuscripts but 27 the melodic outline is, nevertheless, always clearly sustained.
There are in addition a few other discrepancies among the various
sources that need to be dealt with here. The setting in Athens MS. 2454
is, as we have seen, assigned to Mode II Plagal, but immediately preceding
the phrase imyns aGavaxou there is found a medial signature of the Nana mode, as follows:
[uexaAaBexe] TTnCyns]
None of the other 14th-century versions contains a medial signature at
this point and therefore the starting note of the new phrase — always an
ison — is naturally reckoned from the end of the preceding phrase. In
this instance, however, the medial signature seems to suggest a starting
note a third higher (on c_), rather than the same pitch as the previous
ending (a_). There does not appear to be a rational explanation for the use
of this signature, and it must be assumed that this anomaly is due to a
' Such changes invariably appear in the music accompanying the phrase Trnyns aOavaxoU. 11.
scribal error/0 Otherwise, it could possibly mean that the Nana mode has a starting note of a_ in addition to the customary c, but this is highly unlikely.
The first of the two versions of this hymn in Vatopedi MS. 1495
(fol. 217r) is the only example in the 14th-century repertoire which expands this piece with a complete repetition of the phrase imyns &8avaTou and its music. However, a diastematic transcription of the final phrase shows an incongruity which is again probably the result of a scribal error. The following correction (marked by an asterisk) results in the right final is for this version and accords with our other sources.
EXAMPLE 2
A further distortion that must be attributed to scribal error
occurs in Sinai MS. 1294. The initial citation of yevoaoQe is given a
descending third on the second syllable, as opposed to the customary
28 A'questionable medial signature also appears in Athens MS. 2454 in a number of other instances. In fact, Conomos, in his analysis of modal signatures, cites Athens' MS. 2454 as one of the few MSS ..which contains inexplicable martyriai. See Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 320. 12.
descending fourth. This has been corrected in order to achieve agreement with the other versions.
EXAMPLE 3
The five versions of Moschianos's arrangement demonstrate a similar
disagreement concerning modal designation. However, only two modes are
specified here, Mode I Plagal and Mode II Plagal.
Athens MS. 2622 fol. 360 Mode I Plagal, Vienna MS. 185 fol. 285r requiring a d start
Ambrosiana MS. Q. 11 fol. 261v Mode II Plagal, Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 217v requiring an e_ Vienna MS. 185 fol. 268*1 start
Once again all indications seem to suggest that this setting by
Moschianos was not restricted to a single mode. Particularly significant,
of course, is the fact that Vienna MS. 185 contains both versions, one in
each mode. Moreover, if we look to later manuscripts it becomes apparent
that this dichotomy remains unresolved, for all versions follow the tradition 13.
29 of utilizing either Mode I Plagal or Mode II Plagal. The verson in Athens
MS. 2622 is the oldest at our disposal and it has been used as our primary
source.
Aside from Vatopedi MS. 1495, the remaining examples follow Athens
MS. 2622 quite closely. Vatopedi MS. 1495 once again specifies a repetition
of the phrase •mryns aGavaxou with- its entire music, and also contains some more substantive deviations from our model. The changes, however, affect
only incidentally the melodic outline of this version.
This ambiguity in modal designation does not really present a
problem for the remaining versions of Swua xpiaxou, particularly since most
of them are found only in one or two manuscripts. Two versions attributed
to Kladas are contained in the 14th-century repertoire, one of these being
transmitted by two manuscripts:
v30 Athens MS. 904 fol. 268 Mode IV Plagal, requiring a g start, and Nana 31 Athens MS. 2411 fol. 572r Mode IV Plagal
29 ..... It should be noted that the choice of two distinctive main sig• natures is, in two MSS, confirmed by the medial signatures. Thus Vienna • r A *•» L. "MS." 185 "fol-. 285 (trg,') contains a medial signature of g" ..at the identical
point where Vlatadon MS. 46 ('1591').fol. 109r (jry ) gives a comparable
medial signature of y'.
30 ~ ~ Since this Etoua XPiaT0U melody appears anonymously in Athens MS. 904, the attribution has been restored by comparison with Athens MS. 2411 and later 15th-century MSS. Moreover, due to the poor condition of the microfilm of Athens MS. 904 (also the MS?), Athens MS. 899 fol. 149r v and Athens MS. 2406 fol. 287 were used to restore obscure or illegible passages. 31 A microfilm of this MS was unavailable to me, but on a recent trip to Athens D. Conomos kindly copied this Koinonikon from the original MS in the National Library, and I am pleased to express my gratitude for this assistance. 14.
In this case the explanation for the use of the double martyriai in Athens
MS. 904 is quite simple and may be found in Athens MS. 2411. There the scribe has only written the signature for Mode IV Plagal but has added the rubric
". . .KCU Tpixos" (= "and in Mode III"), indicating that the piece belongs not only to Mode IV Plagal. The transition into the Nana form of Mode III is shown by the medial signature *zz which appears after the "irdX.iv"
(= "repeat," "again") (line 5), and.precedes the repetition of irrryns a8avaxou.
Moreover, an examination of this hymn shows that a modulation from Mode IV
Plagal to the Nana mode has already occurred in line 2, for immediately before the first appearance of the word irriYns, the scribe has inserted a phthora requiring a modulation,to Mode III Authentic. This modulation, - which is evident from the musical context as well, is also signified by the same phthora in Athens MS. 904, but where Athens MS. 2411 specified a Nana medial signature after the irdXiv, Athens MS. 904 indicates a medial signature of Mode IV Plagal.
EXAMPLE 4-
A >^-~ " a »-iB ^=5s-*— w sw •m m * W ' IS U E-
m A Is*, m. - m ~£ pft mm f m, m 0 f • f i* f m *V »' «Tj r LET Lf L—X ~ \ 11 Tfrj 77s
See n. 32 below.
Although this should presumably be transcribed as an octave, there are numerous, /indications in 14th and 15th-century MSS that there was a certain amount of confusion concerning intervals larger than a sixth. The context in this case seems to suggest a seventh. 15.
It is self-evident, of course, that the repetition of the phrase wr\yf\s aSavaxou (as indicated by TTOUV) will be in the identical mode as that used 33 for its first citation (the modulation there being denoted by a phthora), and the two passages are, to all intents and purposes, the same. The dif• ference between our two 14th-century sources seems to be that in the case of
Athens MS. 904 Mode IV Plagal is briefly reiterated by the irdAxv formula as well as being specified by the following medial signature, before the melody returns to the Nana mode for the repetition of the irnYns phrase.
In the case of Athens MS. 2411, however, the scribe retains the Nana mode by virtue of the ascending seventh (see Example 4 and the caveat cited there), and consequently prescribes the iTaAiv formula in that mode as well before specifying the Nana medial signature that indicates a continuation in the Nana mode. Both versions subsequently return to Mode IV Plagal and 34 end there with a final is on a_.
Another setting of Zuua xP*°"rou by Kladas is transmitted by our
14th-century manuscripts but appears only in one of our earliest sources:
Athens MS. 2622 fol. 417V Mode III Authentic, re• quiring an' a_ start
In fact the two 15th-century MSS consulted (Athens MS. 899 and Athens MS. 24-06) both indicate a phthora only after TTaAiV and both also specify a medial signature for Mode IV Plagal here.
In Athens MS. 24-11 line 6 - the exact location, is marked by an asterisk in line 10 of Example 11 below, which contains the entire hymn - the scribe has omitted the ison from the -figureThis results in the remainder of the setting being a tone too high, and has been corrected by comparison with Athens MS. 904. 16.
The remaining composers are all represented by a single musical setting of the Easter Koinonikon. Gerasimos's setting occurs in two 14th- century manuscripts:
Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 217V Mode IV Plagal, requiring a . g_ start .
Vienna MS. 185 fol. 285V
Although the melody of this setting is essentially the same in both manu• scripts, the version in Vatopedi MS. 1495 poses a rather unusual problem.
Here the hymn is not only somewhat longer than in Vienna MS. 185 (by approxi• mately four lines), but it contains an entire line of music without any text or teretismata whatsoever. The reasons for the use of this expansion will be analyzed in detail in the section on text; at this point the following explanation should suffice. Due to the absence of the Alleluia in the Easter
Koinonikon, the repetition of entire text phrases together with their accompanying music was commonly utilized in order to fit the hymn to the liturgical action it had to cover. The most frequently repeated phrase was TiriYns aGavaxou yeuaaaSe and it is this phrase which Vatopedi MS. 1495 repeats almost exactly after the customary iraAiv. Vienna MS. 185, however, omits this repetition and proceeds to another repetition of this text phrase
(the conclusion of the hymn) with new music, which also concludes the version in Vatopedi MS. 1495. Immediately preceding this concluding phrase in Vatopedi MS. 1495, however, there occurs the aforementioned line of textless music. By comparing these two versions it becomes evident that the scribe of the Vatopedi manuscript has cleverly inserted .a second ending in order to expand this hymn even further. 17.
This irregularity in Vatopedi MS. 1495 is perhaps most simply explained by reference to the following figure. The word -rrdXiv (lines 7-8) signifies the repetition (in lines 8-10) of the phrase irnyris aBavaxou
Y£U0aa8e and its music (from lines 5-7). In line 11 the scribe has entered the music previously used for udAiv (fig. A), followed by that used for
TrriynLs] (fig. A1) but has omitted this text. The next texted line (line 12) begins with a new ending for [yevoajoQe (fig. E), and continues with new music (fig. 9) for the phrase TrnYns aBavaxou ye-ooaoQe which concludes the hymn. By contrast, in Vienna MS. 185-only an abbreviated version is supplied, with the original frnyn'...s aSavdxou (figs. A and B, cf. with lines 5-7
in Vatopedi MS. 1495) being followed by yevaaoBe. (f.ig. E, cf. with line 12
in Vatopedi MS. 1495), and continuing directly with the concluding material
(fig. e).
On the basis of this comparison the intentions of the scribe in
Vatopedi MS. 1495 become clear. After the repetition contained in lines
8-10 the singer had the option of yet further repetitions. If the liturgical
action required additional music, he would continue with line 11, adding
to the untexted line the text with which he was by now quite familiar, viz.,
uaAiv TrriYns. He would then return to the top of the folio (line 9) which
constitutes the exact textual and musical sequel to line 11 . (as well as
line 8), and continue with line 10. This procedure could be repeated ad
infinitum. Moreover, whenever the singer approached the end of line 10
he could also elect to substitute fig. E (the beginning of line 12) for
fig. T (line 10) in [yeuaaJaGe and thereby draw the hymn to a close by
continuing with line 12 et seq. The reason for the text omission in line 11
thus becomes obvious, as the text required here would have been nonsensical 18.
with the ordinary sequence of lines (i.e. line 11 TraAiv Trnyns line 12
C0E...). It would have confused both singers and future transcribers. In addition the textless line provides the singer with an important visual cue for the alternate second ending of [yevaa]oQe in the following line
(line 12).
FIGURE 1
Refrain Repetition in Gerasimos's Setting
Vatopedi MS. 14-95
fol. - 217V fol. 218r (line 9) ' R JJ M T (line 10) M
a-0a-vd-TOU yevoaoQe T (line 5) (line 11)
Music (=M) A . B A. A' ' M
NO TEXT HERE T Text (=T) [y£]xaAd(3£X£ 'wr\yr\-zr\-zr\ •• [= TraAiv Tm-yn- ] (line 6) (line 12
M B E • 0 etc. M
T -2ns a- a8 £ - UE TTriYns d0a- T
(line 7) • (line 13) M r A-
T ©a-vd-Tou yev-aa-aQe ird- vdxou yevoaaQe ••• || ;(line 8)
M -A - . A'
T Aiv irn-Yn-
Vienna MS. 185 Music ^ A B Text [y£xaAag£T£] xnYn-2n-2n-2ns otGavaTOU Music E 0 • . ^ Text yevoaoQe ue Trnyris a0avax©u yetiaaobe 19.
Only one setting of Ewua xptcfrou by Gavalos is found in the 14th- century repertoire and it is transmitted by two manuscripts:
Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 218r Mode IV Plagal, re• quiring a g_ start
Vienna MS. 185 fol. 285V
The version in Vatopedi MS. 1495 seems to contain a number of scribal errors and for this reason the slightly later version from Vienna MS. 185 is given precedence.
EXAMPLE 5
Ex. 5 0>) _ IT) | 185
TOV
II II l\ 1 % ^ 1 i f A A :r fLf tft TLTC£J GirCfr-TCT-f [vocrovj [a-doQ
The most readily-apparent error is the fact that the Vatopedi scribe
supplies an incorrect ending with a final is on e_, whereas that in the
Vienna MS. ends correctly on a_ (see Example 5a). In addition, the major
portion of line 4 in the Vatopedi. MS. (i.e. following [d]6avaTou) consists 20.
of music that is extraneous to the Vienna version and to the various 15th- 35 century manuscripts utilized for comparative purposes (see Example 5b).
This phrase contains what is probably a further scribal error, for the succeeding line 5, which corresponds to the music immediately following a8avaxou in the Vienna version, is a tone'too low. Further support for this assumption may be found in the final musical phrase of this hymn which is an obvious repetition of the opening phrase and which the Vatopedi scribe begins a tone too low and then ends a third too low, as noted above (see
Ex. 5a). The 15th-century manuscripts that were consulted follow the model of the Vienna MS. and this was deemed to be the preferable version for our purposes.
Doukas's setting of Zwua xpi°"rou is a unica which appears in the
14th-century manuscript:
Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 218r Mode IV Plagal
Once again this version is problematical. The phrase TiriYns aGavdxou yevoaoQe (in lines 3-5) is repeated (in lines 6-8) after the word TraAiv, but a digital transcription results in the latter part of this repetition
(beginning at line 7) being a third lower than the original citation. Due
35Athens MS. 2406 fol. 288V, Vat. Barb. gr. 392 fol. 206V and Iviron MS. 1120 fol. 585v. Only the last MS contains a suggestion of this phrase but it does not, as is the case with Vatopedi MS. 1495, distort the remaining material.
36 * Most likely the error is due to the omission of an oligon or an oxeia from the unusual figure ^s> near-the end of line 4. The exact location is marked by an asterisk in Example 5b. 21.
to its distinctive contours, it is almost certain that this reiteration constitutes not only a textual but also a musical parallel and on this basis a correction has been effected. Beginning with line 7, on the syllable
-va- of deavaxou, the rest of the hymn has been transposed up a third.
The finalis of the text proper then becomes d_ whereas the post-cadential ending concludes on £ .
The one remaining example of Zwya XP*°"T°U is attributed to Panaretos and occurs in only one manuscript:
Koutloumousi MS. 457 fol. 232V Model II Plagal
Although this setting is quite unproblematical, it does pose a question with respect to medial signatures. Immediately preceding the phrase Trnyns aeavarou yeOaaa0e there appears, a signature for Mode I Authentic ( g ) which is followed by an ison above TrnLYHs]. This signature normally requires the note a_ and the ison should merely confirm this pitch. The previous phrase, however, ends with an ascending fifth (from e to b_) and it is a matter of conjecture whether the medial signature or the ison should take priority. It was arbitrarily decided that precedence should be given to the medial signature, and as such this section begins, and eventually ends, in Mode I. 22.
TEXT
The text of the Easter Koinonikon has, for purposes of musical structure, been divided by the Byzantine composers into the following phrases:
1. Euiya xP!-aTou
2. yexaAaBexe
3. -rrrpyris aSavaxou
4. yevoaaBe
This text structure of four phrases is a determining factor in the melodic organization of the hymn, for the phrase endings regularly coincide with cadence points in the music. As Breslich-Erickson has pointed out in her study of the TevaaoBc, it is common practice at this time for major text 37 divisions to be marked by full cadences. Such cadences occur either on the last text syllable of a phrase (or shortly thereafter), or are what might be termed 'progressive' cadences, in that a rhythmic elongation occurs on the first syllable of the succeeding word.' In some instances where the following word is the non-textual term rraAiv or Xeye ( = "say!"), such
'progressive' cadences may occur on either or both of its syllables. The present repertoire shows a remarkable adherence to this principle as is 38 demonstrated by these figures. 37 Breslich-Erickson, "Communion Hymn," p. 55. 38 These computations are not based merely on the initial citation of a phrase; rather, unambiguous phrase repetitions have also been taken into account. 23.
TABLE II
Average Frequency of Text-Phrase Endings Coincident
with Musical Cadences
phrase 1 100%
phrase 2 92%
phrase 3 77%
phrase 4 75%
An unusual feature of the Sajya xP10"tou setting, already alluded 39 to above, is the .extensive use of textual phrase repetitions. The primary reason for this must be sought in the absence of a concluding Alleluia, which is omitted both from this hymn and from the only other non-scriptural
Koinonikon, Too SEXTTVOU aou for Holy Thursday. Since the music of the
Alleluia refrain often surpasses in length that of the text verse proper, other means had to be utilized to expand the music of this hymn in order to cover the same liturgical action. A comparison with the other Communion
s one verses, moreover, reveals that the luiua xP*°"rou "> of the shorter texts, 40 whose length in no way compensates for the missing Alleluia. The problem must have been compounded further due to the position of the Easter feast as the culmination of the liturgical year, a fact which inevitably would have required the presence of additional celebrants, especially in the major churches, thereby necessitating ever more music. The solution, for the 39 See p. 16 above. 40 The texts of all Komonika are reproduced in Conomos, "Communion Chants," pp. 245-48. 24. 3
majority of our composers, was inherent in the text itself, and only the
earliest example from our group, that attributed to Glykes, contains — except for the transmission in Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 217r —no phrase
repetition whatsoever. The slightly later version by Moschianos is also
reticent about this procedure and contains only a brief reiteration of the word XP^TOU within the same musical phrase. Once again, however, the
Vatopedi scribe (on fol. 217v) provides a TraAiv repetition of the third text phrase.
The following table demonstrates the frequency of phrase repeti• tion in this repertoire, and for thxs:purpose the text has been divided into
its five elements. The calculations here are based on eleven examples, since in three instances the repetition in a specific hymn is varied sub• stantially in different sources, and therefore these have been counted
41 separately. It must also be emphasized that the rationale behind this is the presence of a clear and unambiguous repetition of a self-sufficient unit of text and its music. Thus, for example, the reiteration of the word xpiorou in Moschianos's setting mentioned above has not been included, nor has the extension of the word ye-yexaXd-iieTaAageTe in Panaretos's hymn.
TABLE III
Average Text-Element Repetition
Eqjyq XP1 9% 0% 18% 73% 36% 41 This applies to the settings of the following composers as ; transmitted by these MSS: Glykes in Athens MS. 2458 and Vatopedi MS. 1495; Moschianos in Athens MS. 2622 and Vatopedi MS. 1495; Gerasimos in Vatopedi MS. 1495 and Vienna MS. 185. 25. It becomes obvious from these figures that the text-phrase Trnyns aGavdxou was the favoured vehicle of repetition utilized by the 14th- century composers of this hymn. This phrase occurs not only in its normal word order, but in some cases it also consists of juxtaposed words, a 42 feature that is quite common in the kalophonic repertoire. Thus in Gavalos (according to both of our sources) the order is inverted as Trnyns aBavdxou. a9avaxou Trnyns yeCoaoQe, and in Kladas (according to Athens MS. 2622) Trnyns aOavdxou Trnyns [yeuaacGe]' is used as the repetition which follows the citation of the complete text. What does not become apparent from the preceding figures, however, is that the word yevoaoQe often becomes a part of the repeated unit. In fact,in every instance that has been included 43 in these calculations the repetition of yexxsaoBe occurs in conjunction with the preceding phrase, as in Trnyns deavdxou yevoaode. Upon examining this repertoire one.becomes increasingly aware that this element (Trnyns aOavdxou yevoaoQe), or on occasion its three constituent words, functions in a manner analogous to the Alleluia refrain in other Koinonika. It appears as a de facto refrain both by virtue of the textual and musical elaboration accorded to it, and because of its length in relation to the rest of the hymn. Support for this supposition is, of "^Edward Vinson Williams, "John Koukouzeles' Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale, 1968), p. 266. 4-3 . -* In Panaretos's version the concluding repetition of ysvoaoBe constitutes what is virtually a post-cadential formula. Although it is actually an integral part of the hymn, its brevity and syllabic setting have caused it to be dismissed from consideration here. 26. course, evidenced by the figures adduced previously, but of greater interest here are the versions of Sciua XPICTOO transmitted by one specific manu• script, Vatopedi MS. 1495. Without exception, every example in this manuscript contains a repetition of all or part of this unit of text, and even more importantly, the versions here are invariably more highly developed than the same pieces in other 14th-century sources. In the case of the versions attributed to Glykes and Moschianos, Vatopedi MS. 1495 is the only source among a total of nineteen examples which specifies a repetition of the phrase TrTnyris dBavaxou, and in the setting by Gerasimos (see above, p. 16), this manuscript makes provision for an indefinite number of repetitions of the complete textual unit which is not reflected even in the later Vienna MS. 185. Presumably the elaboration of these passages in Vatopedi MS. 1495 is due to reasons of liturgical expediency, but, more significantly for our purposes, it becomes clear that a scribe, when required to expand this hymn, invariably developed the phrase Trnyns deavdxou yeuaaaee. This • ; development is, by its very nature, closely related to the approach taken by the composers of other Communion hymns, who generally utilized the Alleluia refrain when confronted with a similar task. An examination of other Koinonika, in fact, reveals that elements of the text verse are only infrequently repeated, and that the expansion of musical material occurs 44 primarily in the Alleluia. See Conomos, "Communion Chants," p. 245 and Breslich-Erickson, "Communion Hymn," p. 67. An examination of the 14th-century repertoire of TeDOaaQe, shows that less than one-third of the examples repeat a phrase of the text. Such repetitions,- however, are dispersed throughout the text and are not reserved for any one particular segment. 27. Breslich-Erickson's study offers additional support for this suggested consanguinity between Alleluia and the phrase -rrriYns aGav&rou 45 yeuaaaGe. She draws attention to a version of TevoaoBe by Glykes that appears in two 15th-century manuscripts, which is virtually identical to 46 our Ewya xpiaxou attributed to this composer. This correlation, however, extends beyond musical identity to a close similarity of text distribution in comparable musical locations. The following juxtaposition of these texts, taken from the previously mentioned manuscripts, shows this quite clearly; text disposition on identical musical figures being indicated by beams linking the two lines47 (see Fig. 2 on following page). Here the 45 Breslich-Erickson, "Communion Hymn," pp. 51-73. 46 Ibid., pp. 64ff. The MSS are Athens MS. 24-56, to which she assigns a 14-th-l5th century date, and Sinai MS. 1293, which she places in the early 15th century. 4-7 ~ 10 101 The incipits of Zcoya XP' " -' reproduced by Breslich-Erickson on p. 65 of her study contain an inexplicable error. The opening of Sinai- MS. 1293 is actually identical to that?of Athens MS. 24-56, given immediately above; the sole difference in these two sources being, as she has noted, that a modal signature is not provided in Athens MS. 24-56. It has proven impossible to locate the incipit that she has labelled Sinai MS. 1293 in either of these sources. Moreover, the incipit to the TevoaoBe setting in Athens MS. 24-56 contains what is without much doubt.a scribal error which must be corrected; the second neume should be an ison instead of an apostrophos. Most likely the scribe has here copied from his source the second neume of the opening that he was to use shortly thereafter for his version of the Euiya XP'lPTOU (i.e. an apostrophos), but has then continued with the more common iporroi (used in this place in the settings of TevoaoBe in Sinai MS. 1293 and Ewya XPT-CfTOU in Athens MS. 2406, Sinai MS. 1462, and Athens MS. 899) instead of repeating the apostrophos as required by his initial use of an apostrophos. As a result, the melody, which is in all other respects identical to the version in Sinai MS. 1293, is a tone too low. This suggestion of scribal error is given credence by the opening of the Zwya XP1°"T°U setting in Athens MS. 2456 and Sinai MS. 1293, which in both instances contains the following incipit consisting of successive apostrophoi, 5~'V?>cL>5'0--r5^'^ , Underneath, however, an alternate version has been added in red ink, 5—^-o-Tj . The subsidiary neumes are of course identical to the opening utilized for TetioaoBe in Sinai MS. 1293 and FIGURE 2 Text Parallelism in Glyk'es's TetioaoQe and Zoouct XPi-PTOU Texi-oa-oQe Ken \—<5e-X£ o—xi Ypi-axo-s o KU-OI—o-os . a-AXn za-AAn-Aoi3 — 'i-a x^—AAn-Aoti-'i-^a ill I. I I I I I ! J I I, I I, , II Eco —ya XPX aT0U ye-xa Aa —3e xe Trn-yrjbsja—6a—va-xou xa Ye_£1J—aa-a0e oo 29. phrase Trrryris deavdxou yeuaaoi9e is equated unambiguously with the Alleluia refrain, even though this procedure is not dictated by the syllabic align• ment of the two verses. Moreover, the correlation even extends to the placement of the extraneous 1x' in both instances. Although no other such versions of melodic migration between EtLya xpio"rou and any other Koinonika which utilize the Alleluia refrain are known to me, on the basis of the evidence cited above, it seems reasonable to assume that the phrase TrrrYns dGavdxou yeuaaaee fulfilled a role similar to that of the Alleluia. More• over, as a substitute for the customary Alleluia, the repetition of this phrase was eminently suited to the theological significance of the Easter feast, a fact which would scarcely have gone unnoticed by the composers or unappreciated by the listeners. Another feature of the texting practice in this repertoire is what might be referred to as 'word extension', whereby a text-word is prolonged by the repetition of its syllables. This may be done by repeating 48 the previous syllable (eg. ye-uexaAdgexe or Ye^yeuaaaeer}, or by repeating 49 a larger segment of the \text (eg. yexa-yexaAdgexe: or a0avd-0avdxou). the other versions of Eaiua XPICTTOU cited by Breslich-Erickson (excluding the opening labelled 'Sinai MS. 1293'), and permit a correct medial cadence on the opening pitch at the end of the first line. Moreover, the contro• versial second neume in Sinai MS. 1293 (an ison) is abnormally large, sug• gesting that the scribe here may also have originally used an erroneous apostrophos and later covered it with the ison. Furthermore, it should be noted that both Athens,- MS. 24-06 and Sinai MS. 1462 give double main signa• tures for their Eooya XPT-CTOU transmissions, not only the Nana signature (see p. 7 above), and that Athens MS. 899 assigns this hymn to Mode I Plagal and not to Mode II Plagal as indicated by Breslich-Erickson. 48 The former example is from Gavalos in Vatopedi MS. 1495 (fol. 218r), and the latter is from Moschianos in Athens MS. 2622 (fol. 360 ). ^The first example' is from .Gerasimos in Vatopedi'MS. 1495 (fol. 217V), and the second is from Panaretos in Koutloumousi MS. 457 (fol. 232v). 30. The former method is distinguished from the latter by its retention of a specific vowel or diphthong sound, and is therefore related to the inter• calation of foreign letters in the texts of thekalophonic chants during 50 the 14th and 15th centuries. . This extraneous material, which comprises both non-textual letters and the non-alphabetical letters 'z' and V, seems to have been used primarily as a means of supporting the text syllables during the lengthy musical melismas. As suggested by Conomos, their use seems to have a dual purpose; being employed ... ..in the texts of the hymns in order to facilitate the choir's or soloist's delivery of ornamental melismata and to enhance the otherwise disagreeable sound of an extended vowel. ' The most common application of this procedure is as follows: TTn-yn-xn- 52 n Xn-xn-x s and mi-Yn-zn-sn-ans. The non-alphabetical letter 'u' func• tions in-a similar manner but seems to be restricted (in our material at any rate) to instances of minor repetition, e.g., ye-ue-yexaXaftexe and 53 yetioaods-ue. An unusual foreign letter occurs in Moschianos's version in Vatopedi MS. 1495 (fol. 217V), where the word Trrry^s is twice altered to become Trnyn-Kn-Kns. Although uncommon, this is only another means of pro• longing the eta sound, and does not depart from the usage discussed pre• viously. In the final analysis, of course, the extension of the text, whether 50 A detailed exegesis of this phenomenon is contained in Chapter Five, "Intercalated Letters and Meaningless Syllables," in Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, pp. 261-86. 51Ibid., p. 273. 52 v Respectively, from Panaretos in Koutloumousi MS. 4-57 (fol. 232 ), and Gerasimos in Vatopedi MS. 1495 (fol. 217v). 53 v These occur, respectively, in Kladas in Athens MS. 904 (fol. 268 ), and Gerasimos in Vatopedi MS. 1495 (fol. 217v). An unusual use of this letter occurs in Kladas's setting in Athens MS. 2622 (fol. 417v), viz., Zcoya-ue-acoya. Here the syllable 'ue' is equivalent to 'vat' (= "yes"), and the interpola• tion functions as an affirmation. 31. effected by the repetition of syllables or larger segments of the word, and regardless of whether the syllabic repetition is assisted by the insertion of foreign consonants, serves much the same purpose: that of accommodating the text to prolonged musical passages and thereby facili• tating their performance. It must also be noted that the insertion of foreign letters was clearly the prerogative of the scribe, who was usually also a singer. Parallel versions, of Glykes's setting (taken from Athens MS. 2458 fol. 169r and Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 217r, respectively) demon• strate this clearly: yetJ-aa-xa Y£-X£u-aa-a6e ye X£_Xe Yeu aa-a0e A feature that is related to the preceding insertion of foreign letters is the use of meaningless syllables or teretismata. They are entirely absent from the present body of chants and this is somewhat sur• prising, for. lengthy teretismatic passages are found from the 14th century on in other standard liturgical chants such as the Trisagion and 54 Cheroubikon. Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, pp. 273-86. 32. COMPOSERS The composers of Zcoya XP10"TOO in this collection of 14th-century manuscripts are generally identified by rubric, and in the few instances in which chants appear anonymously, the attributions have been restored by 55 comparison with other versions. Little is known, however, about any of 56 these or other 14th and 15th-century Byzantine composers. Usually they are simply names in a manuscript, occasionally modified by titles such as 1protopsaltes1 or 'domestikos'; details about their lives and places of 57 activity are generally unknown. Even details about a composer's period of activity are distressingly limited. On occasion, they are provided by a few tantalizing clues in the contemporaneous 14th and 15th-century manu• scripts themselves, but require in most cases an extrapolation based on a composer's initial appearance in a securely-dated source. A treatise by the 15th-century composer and theoretician Manuel Chrysaphes provides the following order of composers: Aneotes, Glykes, This was necessary in the following cases: Kladas's setting in Athens MS. 904- (fol. 268v); Glykes's settings in Athens.MS. 2600 (fol. 63v), Sinai MS. 1294 (fol. l&7r), and Sinai MS. 1462 (fol. 149r). 56 Ioannes Koukouzeles is the only exception, and he has been ex• tensively studied by Williams, "John Koukouzeles' Reform." 57 v Milos Velimirovic has produced a very helpful list of composers from a 15th-century MS., in "Byzantine Composers in MS. Athens 2406," in Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Jack Westrup (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), pp. 7-18. See also the preliminary observations by Andrija Jakovljevic, "David Raidestinos, Monk and Musician," in Studies in Eastern Chant III, ed. Milos Velimirovic (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 91-97. The protopsaltes and lampadarios directed, respectively, the right and left choirs, whereas the principal singer of each choir was termed the domestikos. 33. Ethikos, Koukouzeles, Kladas.'JO Another list is contained in an introductory note to Koutloumousi MS. 457 (fol. 1 ) and gives this order: . . .the. . .protopsaltes Glykes and. . .his heirs and pupils, Xenos Korones protopsaltes and Ioannes Papadopoulos Koukouzeles, the maistor. . . .^9 These at least provide us with a chronological ordering of the earlier com• posers, and when taken in conjunction with the conclusions about the life of Ioannes Koukouzeles reached by Edward Williams*^ would clearly suggest that all of the aforementioned composers (with the possible exception of Kladas) may be placed in the early 14th century. The remaining composers, however, can in most cases only be dated approximately by a terminus ante quern of their activity as provided by the first appearance of their compositions in a datable manuscript. Naturally this is not an infallible procedure since it presupposes the absence of later additions to a manuscript. The lack of codicological studies of Akolouthiai, however, has necessitated the recognition of the generally accepted date of a manuscript as the date of all of its parts. Since the twenty-eight examples of Ewua XPT-OTOU that have been utilized for this study do not present sufficient data for such an endeavour, the following list is based on an index of all Koinonika from the 14th and 15th centuries. A similar 58 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, "MavouriA XPuad4>ns-AauTra6apxos TOU BaaiAlKOU KArjpou," Vizantiskii Vremonnik VIII (1901): 536-37, cited in Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 74-. ^-Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 66. ^Williams, "John Koukouzeles' Reform," pp. 379 ff. 61 I wish to thank Dimitri Conomos for allowing me the use of this index, which he compiled for his forthcoming publication on the Byzantine and Slavic Koinonika. 34. 62 63 chronology has been attempted by both Breslich-Erickson and Williams, based on their respective repertoires, but in view of the accumulation of additional information here, it becomes clear that in some cases their dating must be advanced considerably. The following is a tentative chronology of our 14th-century composers, together with an indication of the earliest manuscript that contains any of each composer's Koinonika. TABLE IV Earliest MSS that Contain Any Koinonika by Each Composer 1336 (Athens MS. 2458) Glykes Panaretos 1341-ca.l360 (Athens MS. 2622) Moschianos Kladas Gavalas Gerasimos ca.1360-1385 (Vatopedi-.MS. 1495) Doukas Ioannes Glykes's position as a protopsaltes is attested to by numerous sources, and, as Conomos has pointed out, whenever a rubic simply refers to TOU TTPOOTOU IJJ&A.TOU there is little doubt that the reference is to Glykes.^ According to Milos Velimirovic*, he may have been associated 62 Breslich-Erickson, "Communion Hymn," p. 54. ^Williams, "John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 146 and p. 215. 64 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 416. Breslich- Erickson (in "Communion Hymn," p. 54) dates Glykes toca. 1400, and Williams (in "John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 215) suggests the first half of the 15th century. Based on the evidence provided by Chrysaphes's treatise and Koutloumousi MS. 457 (see p. 33 above), however, as well as Glykes's appearance in Athens MS. 2458, it becomes clear that he must have lived at the beginning of the 14th century at the very latest. 35. with the choir of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople but in view of the con• clusions reached by Christos Patrinelis, it seems more likely that Glykes was a member of the 'Royal Clergy'.66 It is also possible that this composer may be identified with Ioannes XIII Glykes, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1315-1319, who is known to have been "a lover and promoter of arts and 67 letters," and such an association certainly fits with the dating suggested above. Nothing whatsoever is revealed about George Panaretos by our sources. Velimirovic' has noted that this is a family name from Constantinople, and that 68 it may also have been the name of-a monastery. In the case of Moschianos it is also possible that this may be either a family name or the name of a 69 monastery. In our repertoire he is on one occasion simply referred to as Konstantinos Aaoauvaicrou (Athens MS. 2622 fol. 360v), and elsewhere as Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 12. 6 6 Christos Patrinelis, "Protopsaltae, Lampadaraii, and Domestikoi of the Great Church during the post-Byzantine Period (14-53-1821)," in Studies in Eastern Chant III, ed. Milos Velimirovic (London: Oxford University "Press, 1973), pp. 145-4-7. On the basis of a passage in Pseudo-Kodinos (J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos, Traite des offices, Paris, 1966, p. 265, line 20 ff., quoted in ibid., p.. 145), Patrinelis has suggested that in Byzantine time the positions of protopsaltes and lampadarios did not exist in the Great Church. He proposes that all references to these offices must be to singers of parochial or pro• vincial churches, or to members of the 'Royal Clergy', i.e. the^palatine choirs. Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, pp. 65-66. 68 • Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 13. Only a IIoTripiov setting by Panaretos appears in Athens MS. 2458 (fol. 170r), but two slightly later MSS (both dated 1340-ca. 1360) contain an Aiveixe melody (Athens MS. 2622 fol. 359v and Ambrosiana MS. L. 36 fol. 264r). The former text is used on Ferial Wednesdays and for feasts of the Mother of God; the latter is used on ordinary Sundays and on Forefeasts. 6 9 •Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 13. 36. Konstantinos.Moschianos.^ Ioannes Kladas is often identified merely as the 'lampadarios1 or Ioannes lampadarios, and, judging from the amount of his music transmitted by 14th and 15th-century manuscripts, he must have been one of the most.prominent composers of the first half of the 14th century.^ He is thought to have been a member of the 'imperial' choir or clergy in 72 Constantinople but little else is known about him. Gavalos is the name 73 of a Cretan family and the only information provided about Philip- is that 74 he was a domestikos. At least two composers with the surname Gerasimos are found in the 14th and 15th-century repertoire of Koinonika. The composer of the Easter hymn under consideration here (in Vatopedi MS. 1495 and Vienna MS. 185) is referred to as Gerasimos hiermonachos, but a comparison of all 7°Vlatadon MS. 46 ('1591'') fol. 109r is the only source which refers to this composer as Moschianos domestikos, but it seems likely that the scribe there has confused Konstantinos with George Moschianos domestikos, see Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 15. Williams ("John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 146) dates Moschianos to the late 14th century/first half of the 15th century, acknowledging, however, on p. 146, n. 5, this composer's presence in Athens MS. 2622. Breslich-Erickson ("Communion Hymn," p. 54) suggests a mid-fourteenth century date for a Gerontios[.?.] Moschianos. 71 Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika, p. 146, notes that the term lampadarios invariably refers to Kladas. Later, however, in Athens MS. 2406 this appellation is also applied to the 15th-century composer Manuel Chrysaphes, see Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 10 and p. 16. When "the lampadarios" is used in isolation, however, it refers only to Kladas. 72 ~ In addition to his setting of Itoua XP10""1^ Athens MS. 2622 also contains numerous examples of IToxfipiov, Axveixe, and Exs uvnuoauvov (the Communion for feasts of the Baptist) by Kladas, and his name appears consis-f tently throughout the remainder of the 14th century. Clearly, then, he must have been born considerably earlier than the end of the 14th century/beginning of the 15th century as proposed by Williams ("John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 215). See also Breslich-Erickson, "Communion Hymn," p. 54. 73 Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 13. 74 r Athens MS. 2622 (fol. 418 ) contains only a TeuaaaGe by Philip Gavalos, but he then appears more frequently in Vatopedi MS. 1495 and Ambrosiana MS. Q. 11, both of which are dated ca. 1360-1385. Williams places him in the first half of the 15th century ("John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 215), and Breslich-Erickson suggests "by 1453" ("Communion Hymn," p. 54). Both assignments are obviously far too late. 37. Koinonikon melodies attributed.to the name 'Gerasimos' reveals that our composer is the person elsewhere identified as Gerasimos. hiermonachos of 75 Halkeopoulos (from Thessalonika). Ioannes Doukas was a domestikos of Unfortunately, the Ecoya.XPICTOU setting by Gerasimos hiero- monachos is only transmitted in Vatopedi MS. 1495 and Vienna MS. 185. Vatopedi MS. 14-95, however, also contains a TeuaaaBe (foL 219v) and a Floxripiov (fol. 198v) by Gerasimos hieromonachos, and in both cases the composer of the same hymns is identified, elsewhere as Gerasimos hieromonachos of Halkeopoulos; the former occurs in Athens MS. 2406 (fol. 216v), and the latter in Athens MS. 2622 (fol. 404v) and Athens MS. 2406 (fol. 254v). In fact, all of the following appellations are used for this same composer in various MSS: Gerasimos hieromonachos of Halkeopoulos (to which is added "from the city of Thessalonica" in Athens MS. 2406 fol. 254v); Gerasimos of Halkeopoulos.;. Halkeopoulos; Gerasimos hieromonachos; Gerasimos .monachos; Gerasimos dyiopXTlKov (= "of the Holy Mountain") or Gerasimos ayiopiTOU (both occur only in Sinai MS. 1527); Gerasimos. A terminus ante quern for this composer is provided by the appearance of his works in Athens MS. 2622 (1341-ca. 1360). A Gerasimos from the monastery of Xanthopoulos also occurs in our sources. Xanthopoulos, as Velimirovic has noted ("Byzantine Composers," p. 12) is the name of a monastery in Constantinople and that of a family associated with it. From the 15th century on this composer occurs mainly in Sinai MSS (but also in Vat. Barb. gr. MS. 300 and Vlatadon MS. 46), and is referred toas Gerasimos of Xanthopoulos, Xanthopoulos,.Gerasimos, and, in one manuscript (Vlatadon MS. 46), as Gerasimos hieromonachos from the monastery of Xanthopoulos. The anomalous designation of 'hieromonachos' for this composer in Vlatadon MS. 46 ('1591') is in all probability a scribal error. Seemingly the scribe of this late MS- has simply switched the appella• tion 'hieromonachos' between the two composers, since he has referred to the former as Gerasimos of Halkeopoulos and has omitted the rightful title of 'hieromonachos-', which he has, instead, added here. It becomes clear then, that only the Gerasimos from Halkeopoulos was a priest-monk, and this lends additional support to our previous conclusion about the composer of the Euya XP1-0"100 melody in our repertoire. A further difficulty arises with the practice, in a number of Sinai MSS (especially Sinai MS. 1532 and Sinai MS. 1463), of indiscriminately referring to both .composers simply as Gerasimos. On the basis of melodic comparisons it has generally been possible to ascertain which composer the scribe was referring to. In the case of one version, that in Sinai MS. 1463 (fol. 255r) and Sinai MS. 1552 (fol. 519r), however, no other copies are transmitted by our sources. Without, inter alia a stylistic analysis that would.be inappropriate to this paper, it is therefore impossible to determine which of the two composers the scribe had in mind. Williams ("John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 146) suggests that Gerasimos hieromonachos be dated to the late 14th century/first half of the 15th century, and Breslich-Erickson ("Communion Hymn," p. 54) says only "by 1453." Both of these estimates are clearly too late. 38. Hagia Sophia in Constantinople; he also had the title of 1laosynaktos1/u and his Ewua XPIOTOU melody in Vatopedi MS. 1495 is one of only a few Koinonika attributed to him.77 The above dating of composers of this Koinonikon may be verified by yet another means. In her study, Breslich-Erickson draws attention to the way in which the order of the composers of the reOqaa0e text in each 78 manuscript reflects the composers' dating. Only in the case of composers that are more or less contemporary with one another does the order become inconsistent. The following table (see p. 39) demonstrates that in our repertoire the manuscripts with multiple versions of Ecoua XPT-CTOO similarly reflect the chronology of their composers. Having established a tentative chronological ordering of our repertoire it now becomes apparent that there exists not only a correlation between chronology and modal usage, but also a chronological order to the modal assignment of a composer's work which is transmitted, in a number of manuscripts. This seems to clarify the seemingly haphazard choice of modes of Glykes's and Moschianos's settings of Ewua xPtaTou (see pp. 7, 8, and 12 above). The following table (see page 40) takes into account only those manuscripts that can be securely dated, and shows clearly this progression in the course of the 14th century. 7 6 Velimirovic, "Byzantine Composers," p. 12. 77 Doukas' Koinonika seem to appear only in Vatopedi MS. 1495, and the dates of this MS agree with the earlier dating suggested by Williams, i.e., the late 14th century (not the first half of the 15th century). See Williams, "John Koukouzeles' Reform," p. 146. 78 Breslich-Erickson, "Communion Hymn," pp. 54-55. TABLE V Ordering of Settings of Ecouq XPi°~ToQ in MSS Athens Ambrosiana Vatopedi Koutloumousi Vienna MS. . MS. MS. MS. MS. 2622 Q.ll 1495 457 185 Glykes #1. #1. #1. #2. #1. #1. #3. Panaretos #2. 79 Moschianos #2. #2. #4. #2. #4 Kladas 80 #3. (Mode III Auth.) #6. ' #5. Gavalos #4. #6. Gerasimos #5. Doukas 79 In Vienna MS. 185 some seventeen folios separate Moschianos's version (#2.) and the second version by Glykes (#3.). 80 In Athens MS. 2622 there are fifty-seven intervening folios between the version by Moschianos and that by Kladas. TABLE VI Modal Assignment of_ -Eu^a ypyoyoy in Securely-Dated MSS Athens L.36 Athens Q.ll Vat. Kout. Vienna Vienna 2458 2622 1495 457 185 185-81 '1336' 1341-ca.l360 ca. 1360 - 1385 ca.1385-1391 Glykes I PI. I PI. Ill Auth. III Auth. Ill Auth. Nana Nana I PI. Panaretos II PI. Ol PI.) Moschianos I PI. II PI. II PI. II PI. I PI. Kladas Ill Auth. Gavalos IV PI. IV PI. Gerasimos IV PI. IV PI. Doukas IV PI. 81 The six settings of this hymn seem to form two discrete units in this MS (see n. 79 above), and have therefore been cited in this manner. See also n. 83. o 41. At the beginning of the century composers seem to have favoured Mode I Plagal for their settings of Ewua XPICTOU, and as noted above (see p. 9) this choice agrees with the earliest musical sources of this hymn. If we consider, for example, the earliest manuscripts which contain the settings by Glykes and Moschianos, and which probably transmit these hymns most faithfully, we find that Mode I Plagal is specified in both instances. The compositions of such composers as Gavalos and Gerasimos, however, show that by mid-century Mode IV Plagal had superseded Mode I Plagal as the most popular choice of mode for this hymn, and this trend is confirmed in the work of the later Ioannes Doukas. Another setting of this text by Kladas, which appears to have been the more popular of his two versions, does not appear in the preceding table since it occurs only in manuscripts which 82 cannot be precisely dated; however, it also reflects this trend with its use of Mode IV Plagal. The preceding table also demonstrates that there seems to be a chronological order to the selection of the several different modes for Glykes's and Moschianos's settings. In the case of the former composer, successive manuscripts show that there is a progression from Mode I Plagal through Mode III Authentic to the Nana mode, and with the latter composer there is in evidence a trend from Mode I Plagal to Mode II Plagal. It must be noted, however, that this progression extends only to the first section 2Athens MS. 904 (fol. 268V) and Athens MS. 2411 (fol. 572r). 42. in Vienna MS. 185 since in both instances the second group reverts, for some 83 inexplicable reason, to the older usage of Mode I Plagal. Continuing in a similar vein it seems possible to utilize this information to extrapolate a somewhat more precise dating of those manuscripts which are merely assigned to the 14th century. Having established that Kladas lived before 1341 (see Table IV) and that by the third quarter of the century (ca. 1360-1385) there was a definite trend towards utilizing Mode IV Plagal for settings of this Koinonikon (see Table VI), it does not seem unreasonable to propose that both Athens MS. 904 and Athens MS. 2411 must have been written post ca. 1360. Similarly, it seems that both Athens MS. 2600 and Sinai MS. 1294 might, on the basis of their inclusion of Glykes's Ewua XPIOTOU melody in Mode I Plagal, conceivably be dated between 1336 and ca. 1360. Naturally this is insufficient data upon which to propose the dating of an entire manuscript, but it does suggest an avenue which, with the accumulation of enough information, might allow such manuscripts to be placed within a more specific chronological context. An examination of Christian Hannick'.s conclusions in regards to the scribes of this MS-, reveals that these, tvjo sections (see Table VI) were written by two different scribes (Hannick, "Etude.,", p. .245). This second group (fols. 285r-286r), which retains the earliest modal designation for this hymn, occurs in a section of the MS devoted to Cheroubika of Holy Thursday and Easter Saturday, and the Koinonikon of Easter (fols. 282r- 285[?]v). It is attributed to scribe A who is actually responsible for the majority of this MS. The two versions of laJua XP^^tou by Glykes and Moschianos on fol. 268r_v occur within a section of the MS - that contains the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (fols. 233V-276V), the latter portion of which was written by scribe B (fols. 261r-276r). This intimates the possibility that the earlier modal assignmentat least in Thessalonica, where this MS pre• sumably originated-^-may have been utilized for these Koinonika at Easter, whereas a different modal scheme—possibly octoechal (?)-*-was used on other occasions. As was noted above (p. 2), this text was also used on Sundays- other than Easter. A less plausible explanation is that each scribe included those versions of which he was particularly, fond in his section of the MS. 43. MUSIC It seems appropriate to begin by considering the three settings of Ecoua xPT-tfToO by Glykes, Panaretos, and Moschianos as a group. Glykes and Panaretos —as was noted above —are the earliest composers represented in our repertoire, and the choice of mode in Moschianos1s setting suggests a chronological proximity to their two versions. Moreover, as will become apparent in the following section, all three Koinonika embody similar struc• tural procedures, and utilize much the same musical material. The complete transcriptions appear in Examples 6, 7, and 8, and in each case the consti• tuent phrases have been vertically aligned so that their interrelationship becomes obvious. The opening of Glykes's composition consists of a single phrase immediately repeated (Example 6, phrase A, lines 1 and 2), the focus of which is figure a. This phrase discloses the first text-unit (Euiya XPICTOU), and is restricted to the lower tetrachord of the mode, d-f_ (aj. In the other two settings theopening is very similar, and in each case figure a plays a determining role. Panaretos also uses an opening which spans the interval of a third, but only sets the first word of the text to it, in the following manner: Ew-xw-ya. Moschianos utilizes much the same opening which, however, has been expanded slightly by the lower auxiliary note£, and which, in its repetition (phrase A'), shows a further increase in range by the consistent 44. EXAMPLE 6 - (a) Glykes, Athens MS.'" 2458, fol. 169r(Trg") (b) Glykes (excerpt), Vat.';MS. 1495, fol. 217r (r~* ) [transposed down a fifth] 46. EXAMPLE 8 — (a) Moschianos, Athens MS/.2622, fol. 360 (TT q ) A >;> (b) Moschianos (excerpt), Vat. MS. 1495, fol. 217V (try ) [transposed down a second] This sign is used to indicate the omission;pf part of the melody. 47. use of the £. Both phrases A and A' nevertheless clearly remain in this lower region of the mode, and once again comprise the entire first phrase of the text, i.e. Ewya XPI°"TOU. All three versions show a considerable augmentation of range in phrase B. In essence, the very restricted ambitus of phrase A is here extended upwards and eventually revolves around the note a^, with only an occasional excursion up to b_ and c_. Even Moschianos, who develops the upper range most consistently, does not venture beyond c_. In his version, however, it is possible to see this phrase as constituting a shift — albeit brief — to the upper tetrachord of Mode I Plagal (i.e. a_-d_), whereas the earlier settings by Glykes and Panaretos show this shift only incipiently, in effect an expansion in range of phrase A. This is particularly evident by the fact that in most instances phrase B in Glykes and Panaretos begins from and returns to the lower tetrachord of the mode, while this occurs less frequently in Moschianos. Glykes's original use of phrase B actually gives every indication of being merely a development of phrase A (see line 3 in which this phrase only spans a third from e-aj, and it is only after successive versions that the character of the phrase becomes sufficiently well defined and its identity clarified (see line 7). In addition, figure b often functions as the closing element of phrase B both here (cf. lines 3, 5, and. 7) and' in the other two versions; thus its use in line 3 adds support to our identification of this line with phrase B. The texting of phrase B at its initial appearance is quite similar in all three versions and shows evidence of a change that seems to constitute a progression from Glykes through Moschianos. Glykes begins this phrase with the first syllable of yeTaAaBexe whereas Panaretos, who does not repeat 48. phrase A as the other two composers do, sets the initial citation of the word XP^O-TOU to phrase B. Moschianos begins with a repetition of this word, and reaches the apogee of the phrase with the first syllable of yexaXaBete. Example 9 illustrates the first use of phrases A and B in all three versions and allows the various similarities of the openings to become readily apparent. EXAMPLE 9 'see n. 84 below After having thus expanded the compass of the melody in phrase B, both Glykes (Example 6, line 4) and Panaretos (Example 7, line 2) return to phrase A before proceeding to a middle section which consists of phrase B; the latter uses this return to the lower tetrachord for his initial setting of yeLxaXaBexe]., and the former uses it for the continuation of this word. This repetition does not occur in Moschianos, who continues directly with phrase B. Transposed to Mode I Plagal for ease of comparison. 49. In all three settings a great deal of similarity may be observed between the various versions of phrase B. This is particularly evident, of course, in the general ambitus and contours of the phrase, as well as in the use of figures b and c. Also noteworthy, however, is the unusually consistent placement of the pelaston within the melodies. This neume occurs 85 somewhat infrequently in 14th-century manuscripts, and it is here reserved not only for the same musical figure, but invariably for the same pitch (i.e. bj. In Glykes's setting the pelaston is used as the peak of phrase B in line 7, and occurs in the word yevoacQe. All other manuscripts which transmit Glykes's hymn use a pelaston at this point, irrespective of whatever other differences in modal assignment or notation they may transmit. In Moschianos's setting the pelaston is used at the identical place in the text but occurs only in Vatopedi MS. 1495 and Vienna MS. 185 and not in our model from Athens MS. 2622. Moreover, at the same place in phrase B, at the word aOavdxou, Vatopedi MS. 1495 adds an additional pelaston (cf. Example 8b, lines 6' and 5'). Panaretos also uses the pelaston only in phrase B, but utilizes it for both the words aGavdxou and xpicrxou (cf. Example 7, 87 lines 6 and 1). It is difficult to deduce the significance of this remarkably consistent usage of the pelaston, but it does serve to emphasize 85Hannick, "Etude," p. 255. 86Sinai MS. 1462 (fol. 149r) and Sinai MS. 1294 (fol. 167r) both use an additional pelaston. In Sinai MS. 1462 it occurs to aGavdxou on the note g_, and in Sinai MS. 1294 it is used during the post-cadential formula to the note e_ (see Example 21). 8 7 Although in line 1 the pelaston occurs on a c_, this note is equivalent, by virtue of the use of,Mode II Plagal in this section, to the note b as it is used in line 6. 50. the similarity of phrase B in all three versions and might conceivably indicate a common origin or at least the existence of a similar model utilized by all three composers. Of greater significance than these various features, however, is the similarity in overall structure that is revealed by all three settings. After a middle section that is devoted to phrase B, all three composers eventually return to phrase A and its lower area of the mode, thereby giving their compositions the semblance of a large tripartite form. In each case the last element of this structure constitutes an amalgamation of the two phrases and their respective regions of the mode, so that the scheme appears as A + B + (A + B). This recapitulation is especially obvious in Glykes's hymn where it is highlighted by the virtually exact reiteration of figure a (see Example 6, lines 6, 7, and 8) and figure b (see Example 6, line 7). Panaretos is similarly unequivocal about the return to phrase A and B (see Example 7, figure a in lines 6 and 7, and figures c and b in line 7) and although Moschianos obscures figures a and b somewhat through embellishment, they are still distinctive enough to permit their identification (see Example 8, figure a in line 7 and compare this with line 2). It is of particular interest that this reappearance of phrase A, and its subsequent combination with phrase B, is relegated to much the same place in the text of all three versions. Panaretos and Glykes both associate this recapitula• tion with the music which separates Trnyfis and deavatou,. and return to it again for the music which accompanies or immediately precedes the last word, yeOoaoQe. Moschianos applies it only to the first syllable of this last word. 51. It should also be noted that in all three versions the lower tetrachord is utilized for the final cadence. Glykes makes direct use here of the opening figure a, and Panaretos follows this procedure, albeit through a lengthening of the figure. Moschianos does not revert to the opening figure but merely returns to this area of the mode by circumscribing the final is d and its upper neighbouring tone. The overall form that emerges in all three versions then is a very simple one that is constructed with a minimum of musical materials. The use of only two phrases underlines the similarity of these early settings of laiua XPI°TOU and segregates them, quite clearly from the more elaborate structures of the later 14th-century composers. Examples 6 and 8 also reproduce a number of parallel musical phrases from the latter section of Glykes's and Moschianos's settings as found in Vatopedi MS. 1495. This manuscript, it will be remembered, contains a repetition in both settings of the phrase Tnyyns dSavdxou and its music. Occasionally, Vatopedi MS. 1495 is slightly more elaborate than our models of Glykes's and Moschianos's settings from Athens MS. 2458 and Athens MS. 2622 (respectively), and it is gratifying to observe that Vatopedi MS. 1495 invariably supports our division of the phraseology (e.g. compare line 5 from Athens MS. 2458 and line 5' from Vatopedi MS. 1495 in Glykes' hymn). In Vatopedi MS. 1495 the word TraAiv is, in both instances, used to introduce the repetition of the phrase Tnryns aQavdxou and it is interesting to note the manner in which this word is set to music. It is not merely given an arbitrary musical figure; rather it comprises an integral part of the structure and fulfils the musical logic of its context. Consider, for example, the ending of the musical phrase which follows the word dSavdxou 52. in Glykes's hymn (as given in Athens MS. 2458, line 7) and which cadences on c_ immediately prior to the leap of a fifth to £ that begins the word yetioaoQe. At the identical location in Vatopedi MS. 1495 (line 7') the notes of this fifth are filled in, a musical elaboration which is also fulfilled by the word -ndXw at the equivalent point in line 7. A comparison of lines 6 and 6' of Moschianos's setting from Vatopedi MS. 1495 (Example 8a) shows that much the same procedure is followed there. The text setting is quite similar in all of these three versions by Glykes, Panaretos, and Moschianos. It amounts to a decidedly conserva• tive treatment that is basically syllabic or neumatic and is only infre• quently expanded into melismas. The longest melisma is invariably written under the second syllable of TnrYns, and in Moschianos's and Glykes's hymns the first, and the first two syllables of yeOoaoQe (respectively) are also prolonged. In general, however, it appears that a maximum effort has been made to preserve the intelligibility of the text by according to most words a syllabic or neumatic musical setting. This is particularly evident in the composers' treatment of the words awua and TrriYns, the former opening the hymn and the latter beginning the second major section. The word Tnryris is always set to two successive notes of the same pitch, and this gives it a somewhat heraldic quality. Panaretos and Moschianos both delay the final consonant of this word by the use of intercalated material but this only obviates the lengthy unsupported melisma on the final syllable that occurs in Glykes's setting in Athens MS. 2458. A similar procedure is utilized for the word acoya. Only in Panaretos's hymn are the two syllables of this word not set to successive notes. Instead, he introduces a repeti• tion of the opening vowel by using the intercalated syllable 'xw' after 53. an intervening upper neighbouring tone, but this is at most a minor departure from the nature of the opening used by the other two composers. The two works by Kladas — one in Mode III Authentic, the other in Mode IV Plagal (hereafter, respectively, Kladas r and Kladas A) — comprise a second category for the Easter Communion hymn. Chronologically, and to some extent stylistically, they show a connection with the preceding three versions, whereas the choice of mode suggests. — at least in one case — a link with the remaining settings in Mode IV Plagal.. In fact, a close examination reveals that they exhibit a far greater similarity to one another than to either the earlier or later settings, and will therefore be treated independently. The two hymns are reproduced in Examples 10 and 11, and their interrelationship, as well as their divergence from the earlier settings, is immediately apparent. It is evident that the structure here has been expanded somewhat, and both works are now constructed with three musical phrases rather than two as had been utilized by the earlier composers. Within each version the first two phrases (A and B) are decidedly similar; occupying much the same tessitura and displaying like contours. Their distinctiveness, however, is manifested by the generally dissimilar opening or closing notes, and by the correlation of some significant musical elements. Compare, for instance, figure e which dominates the cadence of most examples of phrase B in Example 10, but is not present in phrase A. Similarly, in Example 11, the descending motion of phrase A is usually initiated by a combination of figures f and g, whereas this descent is generally avoided in phrase B by the use of figure h. Phrase C, on the other hand, is in 54. EXAMPLE 10 — Kladas, Athens MS. 2622, fol. 417 (f " " ) 55. 56. both versions completely at variance with the two preceding phrases and forms an easily identifiable group. The following Example 12 contains the first line of all three phrases, and this juxtaposition highlights an astonishing similarity between both of Kladas's settings. Not only are the three phrases virtually identical in both settings but their initial appearance occurs at equivalent points in the text, i.e. each phrase coincides with one of the first three text divisions. It is scarcely an exaggeration, then, to suggest that both hymns are fashioned from the same materials, for although some differences are evident, the degree of identity is far too great to permit it to be sum• marily dismissed. The two hymns are originally assigned to different modes that start a second apart, and Example 12 shows that phrase A in each version is a transposition, by an interval of a second, of its companion. In Kladas r the opening phrase is longer, and is more highly developed by virtue of its two distinct upward curves (cf. phrase A" and A' in Example 12), but this only shows the slight divergence in compositional approach that is also apparent elsewhere in this setting. This dissimiltude is revealed, in particular, by the unusual and extended melisma on the first syllable of Ecoya, as well as by the repetition of this entire word, a feature which occurs in no other 14th^century example. More than twice as much music is actually devoted to the first phrase of the text in Kladas r than in Kladas A, and a similar change of proportions is also evident in the second phrase. A modulation to Mode IV Authentic, which is verified by the inter• polation of a medial signature of that mode, occurs at the beginning of phrase B in Kladas r and results in this version acquiring the same pitch EXAMPLE 12 58. level as Kladas A. This phrase, together with the second unit of text, is again given a more extensive musical treatment in the former hymn, occurring there three times, and only once in Kladas A. At its first repetition in Kladas r this phrase is preceded by a medial signature of the Nana mode, a signature that is somewhat puzzling for its context suggests that it must be reckoned from 9_ and not its customary c_. Moreover, except for the somewhat lower tessitura in its central part, this phrase is equivalent to the pre• vious one, which had been introduced with the signature of Mode IV Authentic. In Kladas r the beginning of phrase C is introduced by the word Xeye which is set to a musical fragment that is similar to the intonation po formula for the Nana mode (Mode IV Medial), and it is followed by a medial signature of this mode. The use of the word Xiye at this point is rather unusual, for ostensibly it does not mark either a musical or textual repe• tition, and is set to the identical figure that is used slightly later for the word TT&AXV which introduces a .'repetition of the phrase rrriYris a6avdxou. Although the word X£ye may signify an unnotated and as yet unrecognized reiteration of previous material, its most apparent role is that it acts as an abstract of the opening of the succeeding phrase. After the repetition of phrase C there occurs a brief musical phrase (Example 10, line 8) that is our first indication of the practice of word inversion — in this case, word g elision — that became increasingly popular among the composers of this era. See the formulae of Mode IV Plagal in Oliver Strunk, "Intonations and Signatures of the Byzantine Modes," in Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, p. 24- examples '#10 and #11, and p. 33. 89 See p. 25 above. 59. It is obvious, however, that the phrase TrriYns yetfoaoBe is merely a para• phrase that conveys the idea of the complete phrase in a somewhat more succinct but equally intelligible and possibly more emphatic manner. A phthora of Mode III Authentic marks the beginning of phrase C in Kladas A but this only confirms a transposition that is evident from the music itself. The repetition of this textual and musical unit is introduced by the word irdAxv (Example 11, line 7), and as was the case in our three earlier settings, this word is set to an organic part of the phraseology of this hymn. In Example 4 above (p.. 14), we noted the divergent approach taken by the two scribes of Athens MS. 2411 and Athens MS. 904 for the setting of the word TrdAxv, but Example 12 reveals that the latter, in effect, substitutes phrase B where the former uses phrase C. Preceding the reitera• tion of TTriYns deavdxou the scribe in Athens MS. 2411 also interpolates a signature of the Nana mode (zz), whereas Athens MS. 904 utilizes a martyriai of Mode IV Plagal. In the three early versions of Zwya XP'LOTOU we observed in each case the recapitulation of phrase A towards the close of the hymn, and this feature resulted in all settings acquiring the appearance of a tripartite structure. A similar tendency appears in the examples by Kladas, but the symmetrical scheme is no longer visible. Kladas r uses a phrase (Example 10, line 7) that is reminiscent, both by its tessitura and its use of figure d, of phrase A (see especially line 3). As in our earlier settings, this is then followed by the remaining phrases: the ending only of phrase B, and the TrdAxv repetition of phrase C in its entirety. In addition, the conclusion of this hymn utilizes a portion of phrase A', as does the post-cadential material. However, in spite of this, a substantially different form results 60. and the reiteration of material from phrase A seems practically incidental to it. The difference in form is caused mainly by the disproportionately greater amount of musical emphasis placed on the first two phrases (A and B) and their music, an imbalance which is furthered by the brevity of phrase C. Kladas A demonstrates a rather complex structure in which a great deal of alternation of phrases B and C takes place, and in which phrase A plays a significant, if intermittent, role. The recapitulation of phrase A is actually considerably more distinctive here than in the former Kladas example, and it occurs with the word a9av&Tou (Example 11, lines 7 and 12), a placement that is analagous to that in Glykes's and Panaretos's versions. Moreover, as was the case with our earlier settings, phrase A is immediately followed by phrases B and C (see Example 11, line 12, since this omits the •ndXxv phrase that follows in line 7). In Kladas r, however, the reappearance of phrase A is set to the first syllable of yevoaaQe and this usage is similar to Moschianos's version, as well as the second occurrence of the phrase in Glykes's and Panaretos's hymns. A completely different approach to text setting is seen in Kladas's two works. In Kladas r, except for a few instances — notably the lengthy melismas on Eto-ua, and that which occurs at the initial use of yetioaoQe — the preference is for a repetition of words, or occasionally parts of words, rather than lengthy, unsupported melismas. Again there seems to be a maximum emphasis on the comprehensibility of the text and the remaining melismas generally occur on the last or penultimate syllables of a word, thereby ensuring that the nature of the word has been clearly expressed, e.g., yeTaAd-gexe or a0avd-xou. In Kladas A, however, text words, are not repeated — barring, 61. of course, the repetition associated with the -ndXiv — and this requires the more frequent use of the lengthy melismas, especially since it is the longer of the two hymns. Since most of the text receives a neumatic/syllabic setting this does not affect its intelligibility to any great extent, and the longest melisma occupies a familiar place on the second syllable of Tiryyns. Only in the word yetioaoBe are all of the syllables widely dispersed by the insertion of melismatic passages. The setting of the words Ewua and Trnyns is also subtly altered in the two settings. In Kladas r the first words is — as we have already seen — subjected to a lengthy melisma, but the word Trnyns is set syllabi- cally. Both syllables of this word are initially set to two identical notes, but when the word is reiterated the repeated pitch of the second syllable is presaged by both lower and upper neighbouring tones. The second repetition is yet again different and there the second syllable is set a third higher than the first. Also, in contrast to both Kladas A and the earlier versions discussed above, only a moderate melisma is written to the second syllable of -rrnYns, and this occurs solely at its second citation. Except for the initial use of Tnyyns, Kladas A also continues the practice of setting both syllables of the two words to successive notes of the same pitch. It is possible, though, that in the former instance the unusual disposition of the syllable yris is primarily meant to signify the placement of the sigma consonant, in a manner analagous to TrnYn-xns which occurs frequently in our repertoire. In that case the scribe would have assumed that the two vowels of Trnyns would be sung in the customary manner to the two consecutive notes at the beginning of the phrase, similarly to that which he notated for the repetition of the word in line 8 (Example 11). 62. EXAMPLE 13 — Gavalos, Vienna MS. 185, fol. 284V (7T <5" 63. 64. EXAMPLE 15—Doukas, Vat. MS. 1495, fol. 218P (TT3 ) 65. The openings of the remaining settings in Mode IV Plagal by Gavalos, Gerasimos, and Doukas immediately suggest a similarity between these three versions, and this is verified by a closer examination of the complete hymns. Example 16 shows the first use of phrases A and B, and there the re• lationship becomes readily apparent. (The complete settings are contained in Examples 13, 14, and 15). EXAMPLE 16 Phrase.A fJ-st line) ( I GCLUZIOS L J J ' - J f2 /UOC C7) Gerasimos ifi^-n ''yUOC ^ fete Phmsc B Cist line) (7) Gavalos \ • t A Gerasimos (3rd Une) m Mi. Aoi ^ Doukas TCC XOL pe. 66. The unique outline of the opening phrase — displayed most clearly in the examples by Gavalos and Doukas — suggests that the hymn may have acquired not only a common modal usage but also a standard opening by the latter part of the 14th century, i.e. post-Kladas. In its most basic form this opening comprises the notes £-a_-c_-a_-a_ and this may also be seen in 90 other Koinonika. Moreover, the similarity clearly extends also to phrase B, and in both cases is associated with the identical text phrases. A similar approach to phrase C in Gavalos is also taken by Doukas in phrase D but by this point a divergence in text setting has occurred, as is seen in Example 17. EXAMPLE 17 PhrascC -i P /\ (?) Gavalos Doukas tfa ' F —I— m era In spite of this obvious use of the same musical material all three versions show a number of unique features. Returning once again to the opening, it can be observed that the repetition of this phrase A (line 90 This opening is vaguely similar to the Mode IV. Plagal opening of the 13th-century AiveiTE melody provided by Conomos, "Communion Chants," p. 256. In addition, the two 14th-century examples of TevoaoQe in this mode that are known to me, both utilize an opening that is clearly based on that found in Example 16. The settings by Gerasimos and Raidestinos — a composer who makes a first appearance in the same MS as Gerasimos, i.e. Athens MS. 2622 — contain openings that are somewhat more ornate than those illustrated here, but whose similar outlines are easily visible. (Gerasimos in Vatopedi MS. 1495 fol. 219v-220r-and Raidestinos in Athens MS. 2622 fol. 419r: ) 67. 2 in all three versions) is subtly varied by each composer. Only in Gerasimos does the phrase now ascend to the original c_, whereas both Gavalos and Doukas limit its upward movement to b_. A comparison with phrase A in line 3 of Gavalos's setting (Example 13) clarifies the relationship of line 2 — both here and in Doukas's hymn —with line 1. The presence there of figure i within the standard opening formula reveals that in line 2 we are dealing with a simiiiar, albeit slight, variation of phrase A that is char• acterized by the omission of the c_ and the substitution of figure i which initiates the phrase's descent. Interestingly enough, figure i also occurs in Kladas r (Example 10, line 1, phrase A') where it fulfils a similar function. In that case, however, it is merely a repetition of phrase A and in no way alters the contours of the opening phrase. Another minor difference between these three settings is that Gavalos sets the first syllable of uexaXdpexe to a second repetition of phrase A, whereas the two other composers only repeat this phrase once and utilize it solely for the first text unit. The congruity of phrase B in all three versions has already been shown in Example 16 but various differences in its use may also be observed. Gavalos initially employs this phrase only for the remainder of [ye]xaXdS£T£ and then proceeds to phrase C for the subsequent text. Conversely, both Gerasimos and Doukas lavish a great deal of attention on this phrase. In the former version it is originally repeated four times and used only for a number of reiterations of the word yexaXdftexe (Example 14, lines 2-6), while the latter composer immediately reuses this musical phrase for the entire middle section of the .text, viz., yexaXdftexe TrriYns aGavdxou (Example .15, lines 2-4). 68. After phrase B the approach of the three composers diverges sub• stantially. Phrase C in Doukas's setting is virtually the same as phrase D of Gavalos's version, but Gavalos set this to the word aQavdxou rather than to yeuaaaGe as set by Doukas. Moreover, it is only at the second un- texted occurrence of phrase D (Example 13, line 5) that its similarity to Doukas's phrase C really becomes evident, for its initial appearance in line 4 conveys at most an affinity based on tessitura and contours. Phrase C in Gavalos, however, is equivalent to the third phrase used by Gerasimos but once again they are used for different purposes in the text. EXAMPLE 18 Phrase C* Oerasimos Gerasimos V Jjr) 71^ In Gavalos the phrase is set to the word Trnyns (Example 13, lines 3 and 6), whereas Gerasimos uses it as the musical adjunct of the directions Xeye and TrdAxv (Example 14, lines 4 and 8). It is only later in the hymn that this phrase also serves as a reiteration of the word Trnyris and subsequently, aQavdxou (Example 14, lines 13 and 14). This once again demonstrates that the words rrdAxv and Xeye are set to an integral part of the hymn's structure. 69. Gerasimos extends his hymn yet further by the introduction of two additional phrases, which bear no resemblance to any of the material in the settings of Gavalos and Doukas. Phrase D is essentially a lengthy melisma to the word Trnyns but its most interesting feature is that it concludes with the citation of an abbreviated version of phrase A. This is followed by phrase E which is repeated for the first setting of the two words deavdxou and ye-CaaoQz, Snd' functions" as a cadential figure of this section. It is obvious that these three versions display somewhat more elaborate structures than our earlier settings but in spite of this a number of significant features are held in common. As was the case with the majority of the previous settings, a reiteration of the opening phrase A occurs towards the end of these examples. The most distinctive recapitu• lation is visible to the word yetioaoBe in line 8 of Gavalos's version (Example 13), for here it consists of a virtually exact repetition of line 1. This repetition is preceded by a reiteration of phrases B and C to the text of dQav&Tou and mryns, and results in a symmetrical structure that is analagous to a Bogen form. This sequence also shows once again the practice of text elision and it occurs here in the same manner as in Kladas r. Doukas utilizes a form that is scarcely more complex although its proportions are somewhat different. The expansive middle section, which comprises phrase B and the two middle units of the text, has been alluded to above, and is followed by a brief setting of yetioaoBe in phrase C. This final word is immediately repeated but by music that reverts to phrase A (see Example 15, line 5), and after this the entire latter half of the text recurs to the music that had been utilized previously, i.e. phrases B and C. Only in the case of phrase C does this constitute an exact repetition of the foregoing 70. music. The versions of phrase B are clearly related to the original example in line 2, but show signs of embellishment and variation. Also significant, however, is that this repetition is introduced by a TrdAiv unit that evidences the same integration into the phraseology that had been observed in previous examples. Here it fulfils the ascent from g_ to d with which phrase B begins. The setting by Gerasimos demonstrates the most complex and pro• tracted structure of our group. We have noted above the manner in which a compact reiteration of phrase A functions here as a closing figure to phrase D and is then followed by its corollary, phrase E. Subsequently, however, a somewhat more concise setting of the last two text phrases is appended, and these constitute a curious amalgamation of the previous musical material. The word aeavdtou is set to a brief fragment that resembles phrase C which had earlier been employed for Aeye, TT&AIV, and Trrryris, and the word yeuaaaOe contains a reiteration of phrase B which reverts once again to phrase A for its conclusion. It is clear that Gerasimos has utilized.his original musical material to the utmost, but has returned, invariably, to the opening phrase in a manner that seems to have been customary for most composers of this hymn. Moreover, in agreement with all but one of the preceding versions, this recapitulation occurs in proximity to the word ye-OoaoBe. The text setting of these three Koinonika shows some major changes from all previous examples. Particularly obvious is a trend towards a melismatic —occasionally neumatic — treatment of the text, in contrast to the earlier hymns which generally evince a syllabic-neumatic text setting. Although Gerasimos is usually somewhat more conservative in this respect — with a considerably greater amount of syllablic usage —there is a marked 71. tendency, especially in the versions by Gavalos and Doukas, in favour of lengthier melismas for each text syllable. Such melismatic passages intrude increasingly upon the forthright exposition of the text, but seldom affect its lucidity, and never show an expansion into the unrestrained melismas that constitute a feature of the kalophonic repertory. It is also interesting to note that the syllables of the two introductory words of each section, Zwya and Trnyns» are now seldom set to successive notes of the same pitch as had been -the case in most earlier versions of this hymn. In fact, only the first setting of the word Trnyns in Gerasimos's setting receives this treatment, and even at its second occurrence there the syllables of this word are separated. Gerasimos and Doukas, however, still retain the longest melismatic passage for the latter syllable of Trnyns, and in Gerasimos's version this is a very expansive melismathat is supported by the intercala• tion of non-textual vowels. All three settings also separate the two ; syllables of acoua by the insertion of melismas of varying length. Gerasimos, in particular, utilizes a lengthy melismatic passage at this point, and in this he seems to be following a practice that was first observed in Kladas r. 72. SUMMARY A. Changes With a total of only eight settings of the proper Koinonikon for Easter it is naturally impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusions about the development of this hymn during the 14th century. Nevertheless, a number of overall trends become visible and these will be dealt with in this section. The most obvious change in our repertoire of EaJya XPICTOU is that the dimensions of the settings are progressively expanded in the course of the century. In the following table (see following page) two criteria were utilized in order to establish the length of the eight versions: a note count of the entire hymn (excluding the post-cadential formulae), and an